Much of the backlash against GMOs is less about genetic engineering and more about the business practices of the corporations that control our food supply. GMO crops have been a money-maker for herbicide companies—and as crops have been modified to be herbicide-resistant, herbicide use increases. For companies making GMO seeds and associated herbicides, that’s a lot of power over something as critical as how we feed ourselves.
…
As we continue to confront and sort out the ethics of it all, however, we can’t neglect the potential good that genetic engineering may bring. We might even look beyond pests and weeds in the future. Plants could be engineered to produce more nutrients to improve our diet or to be more resilient to climate change, or even to protect the environment instead of just reducing agriculture’s impact on it.
GMOs are part of the larger genetic engineering debate, which is only going to intensify. New techniques are getting easier, cheaper, and more precise by the year. Tech can do damage or be a force for good; the real trick is weighing risk and benefit impartially and making choices that steer us in the right direction.
The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion, and analysis. Read full, original post: The Future of Food: To GMO or Not To GMO?
For more background on the Genetic Literacy Project, read GLP on Wikipedia
